recovered my vital strength_; not that any ghost or incorporeal substance entered into, and possessed his body.
[Sidenote: Sixthly, for a subordination to authority.]
In the xith chap. of _Numbers_, v. 17, _I will take_, saith God, _of the Spirit, which is upon thee, and will put it upon them, and they shall bear the burthen of the people with thee_; that is, upon the seventy elders: whereupon two of the seventy are said to prophecy in the camp; of whom some complained, and Joshua desired Moses to forbid them; which Moses would not do. Whereby it appears, that Joshua knew not that they had received authority so to do, and prophecied according to the mind of Moses, that is to say, by a _spirit_, or _authority_ subordinate to his own.
In the like sense we read, (_Deut._ xxxiv. 9) that _Joshua was full of the spirit of wisdom, because Moses had laid his hands upon him_: that is because he was _ordained_ by Moses, to prosecute the work he had himself begun, namely the bringing of God’s people into the promised land, but prevented by death, could not finish.
In the like sense it is said, (_Rom._ viii. 9) _If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his_: not meaning thereby the _ghost_ of Christ, but a _submission_ to his doctrine. As also, (_1 John_ iv. 2) _Hereby you shall know the Spirit of God; every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God_; by which is meant the spirit of unfeigned Christianity, or _submission_ to that main article of Christian faith, that Jesus is the Christ; which cannot be interpreted of a ghost.
Likewise these words, (_Luke_ iv. 1) _And Jesus full of the Holy Ghost_, (that is, as it is expressed, _Matt._ iv. 1, and _Mark_ i. 12, _of the Holy Spirit_,) may be understood, for _zeal_ to do the work for which he was sent by God the Father: but to interpret it of a ghost, is to say, that God himself, for so our Saviour was, was filled with God; which is very improper and insignificant. How we came to translate _spirits_, by the word _ghosts_, which signifieth nothing, neither in heaven, nor earth, but the imaginary inhabitants of man’s brain, I examine not: but this I say, the word _spirit_ in the text signifieth no such thing; but either properly a real _substance_, or metaphorically, some extraordinary _ability_ or _affection_ of the mind, or of the body.
[Sidenote: Seventhly, for aerial bodies.]
The disciples of Christ, seeing him walking upon the sea, (_Matt._ xiv.
26, and _Mark_ vi. 49) supposed him to be a _Spirit_, meaning thereby an aerial _body_, and not a phantasm; for it is said, they all saw him; which cannot be understood of the delusions of the brain, (which are not common to many at once, as visible bodies are; but singular, because of the differences of fancies,) but of bodies only. In like manner, where he was taken for a _spirit_, by the same apostles, (_Luke_ xxiv. 37): so also (_Acts_ xii. 15) when St. Peter was delivered out of prison, it would not be believed; but when the maid said he was at the door, they said it was his _angel_; by which must be meant a corporeal substance, or we must say, the disciples themselves did follow the common opinion of both Jews and Gentiles, that some such apparitions were not imaginary, but real, and such as needed not the fancy of man for their existence. These the Jews called _spirits_, and _angels_, good or bad; as the Greeks called the same by the name of _demons_. And some such apparitions may be real, and substantial; that is to say, subtle bodies, which God can form by the same power, by which he formed all things, and make use of, as of ministers, and messengers, that is to say, angels, to declare his will, and execute the same when he pleaseth, in extraordinary and supernatural manner. But when he hath so formed them, they are substances, endued with dimensions, and take up room, and can be moved from place to place, which is peculiar to bodies; and therefore are not ghosts _incorporeal_, that is to say, ghosts that are in _no place_; that is to say, that are _no where_; that is to say, that seeming to be _somewhat_, are _nothing_. But if corporeal be taken in the most vulgar manner, for such substances as are perceptible by our external senses; then is substance incorporeal, a thing not imaginary, but real; namely, a thin substance invisible, but that hath the same dimensions that are in grosser bodies.
[Sidenote: Angel, what.]
By the name of ANGEL, is signified generally, a _messenger_; and most often, a _messenger of God_; and by a messenger of God, is signified, any thing that makes known his extraordinary presence; that is to say, the extraordinary manifestation of his power, especially by a dream or vision.
Concerning the creation of _angels_, there is nothing delivered in the Scriptures. That they are spirits, is often repeated: but by the name of spirit, is signified both in Scripture, and vulgarly, both amongst Jews and Gentiles, sometimes thin bodies: as the air, the wind, the spirits vital and animal of living creatures; and sometimes the images that rise in the fancy in dreams and visions; which are not real substances, nor last any longer than the dream, or vision they appear in; which apparitions, though no real substances, but accidents of the brain; yet when God raiseth them supernaturally, to signify his will, they are not improperly termed God’s messengers, that is to say, his _angels_.
And as the Gentiles did vulgarly conceive the imagery of the brain, for things really subsistent without them, and not dependent on the fancy; and out of them framed their opinions of _demons_, good and evil; which because they seemed to subsist really, they called _substances_; and, because they could not feel them with their hands, _incorporeal_: so also the Jews, upon the same ground, without any thing in the Old Testament that constrained them thereunto, had generally an opinion, except the sect of the Sadducees, that those apparitions, which it pleased God sometimes to produce in the fancy of men, for his own service, and therefore called them his _angels_, were substances, not dependent on the fancy, but permanent creatures of God; whereof those which they thought were good to them, they esteemed the _angels of God_, and those they thought would hurt them, they called _evil angels_, or evil spirits; such as was the spirit of Python, and the spirits of madmen, of lunatics and epileptics: for they esteemed such as were troubled with such diseases, _demoniacs_.
But if we consider the places of the Old Testament where angels are mentioned, we shall find, that in most of them, there can nothing else be understood by the word _angel_, but some image raised, supernaturally, in the fancy, to signify the presence of God in the execution of some supernatural work; and therefore in the rest, where their nature is not expressed, it may be understood in the same manner.
For we read, (_Gen._ xvi.) that the same apparition is called, not only an _angel_, but _God_; where that which (verse 7) is called the _angel_ of the Lord, in the tenth verse, saith to Agar, _I will multiply thy seed exceedingly_; that is, speaketh in the person of God. Neither was this apparition a fancy figured, but a voice. By which it is manifest, that _angel_ signifieth there, nothing but _God_ himself, that caused Agar supernaturally to apprehend a voice from heaven; or rather, nothing else but a voice supernatural, testifying God’s special presence there.
Why therefore may not the angels that appeared to Lot, and are called (_Gen._ xix. 12) _men_; and to whom, though they were two, Lot speaketh (verse 18) as but to one, and that one, as God, (for the words are, _Lot said unto them, Oh not so my Lord_), be understood of images of men, supernaturally formed in the fancy; as well as before by angel was understood a fancied voice? When the angel called to Abraham out of heaven, to stay his hand (_Gen._ xxii. 11) from slaying Isaac, there was no apparition, but a voice; which nevertheless was called properly enough a messenger or _angel_ of God, because it declared God’s will supernaturally, and saves the labour of supposing any permanent ghosts.
The angels which Jacob saw on the ladder of Heaven, (_Gen._ xxviii. 12) were a vision of his sleep; therefore only fancy, and a dream; yet being supernatural, and signs of God’s special presence, those apparitions are not improperly called _angels_. The same is to be understood, (_Gen._ xxxi. 11) where Jacob saith thus, _The Angel of the Lord appeared to me in my sleep_. For an apparition made to a man in his sleep, is that which all men call a dream, whether such dream be natural, or supernatural: and that which there Jacob calleth an _angel_, was God himself; for the same angel saith, verse 13, _I am the God of Bethel_.
Also (_Exod._ xiv. 19) the angel that went before the army of Israel to the Red Sea, and then came behind it, is, (verse 24) the Lord himself; and he appeared, not in the form of a beautiful man, but in form, (_Exod._ xiii. 21) by day, of a _pillar of cloud_, and, by night, in form of a _pillar of fire_; and yet this pillar was all the apparition and _angel_ promised to Moses, (_Exod._ xxxiii. 2) for the army’s guide: for this cloudy pillar (_Exod._ xxxiii. 9) is said to have descended, and stood at the door of the Tabernacle, and to have talked with Moses.
There you see motion and speech, which are commonly attributed to angels, attributed to a cloud, because the cloud served as a sign of God’s presence; and was no less an angel, than if it had had the form of a man, or child of never so great beauty; or wings, as usually they are painted, for the false instruction of common people. For it is not the shape; but their use that makes them angels. But their use is to be significations of God’s presence in supernatural operations; as when Moses (_Exod._ xxxiii. 14) had desired God to go along with the camp, as he had done always before the making of the golden calf, God did not answer, _I will go_, nor, _I will send an angel in my stead_; but thus, _My presence shall go with thee_.
To mention all the places of the Old Testament where the name of angel is found, would be too long. Therefore to comprehend them all at once, I say, there is no text in that part of the Old Testament, which the Church of England holdeth for canonical, from which we can conclude, there is, or hath been created, any permanent thing, understood by the name of _spirit_ or _angel_, that hath not quantity; and that may not be by the understanding divided; that is to say, considered by parts; so as one part may be in one place, and the next part in the next place to it; and, in sum, which is not (taking body for that, which is somewhat or some where,) corporeal; but in every place, the sense will bear the interpretation of angel, for messenger; as John Baptist is called an angel, and Christ the Angel of the Covenant; and as, according to the same analogy, the dove and the fiery tongues, in that they were signs of God’s special presence, might also be called angels. Though we find in _Daniel_ two names of angels, Gabriel and Michael; yet it is clear out of the text itself, (_Dan._ xii. 1) that by Michael is meant Christ, not as an angel, but as a prince: and that Gabriel, as the like apparitions made to other holy men in their sleep, was nothing but a supernatural phantasm, by which it seemed to Daniel, in his dream, that two saints being in talk, one of them said to the other, _Gabriel, Let us make this man understand his vision_: for God needeth not to distinguish his celestial servants by names, which are useful only to the short memories of mortals. Nor in the New Testament is there any place, out of which it can be proved, that angels, except when they are put for such men as God hath made the messengers and ministers of his word or works, are things permanent, and withal incorporeal. That they are permanent, may be gathered from the words of our Saviour himself, (_Matt._ xxv. 41) where he saith, it shall be said to the wicked in the last day, _Go ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels_: which place is manifest for the permanence of evil angels, (unless we might think the name of Devil and his angels may be understood of the Church’s adversaries and their ministers); but then it is repugnant to their immateriality; because everlasting fire is no punishment to impatible substances, such as are all things incorporeal. Angels therefore are not thence proved to be incorporeal. In like manner where St. Paul says, (_1 Cor._ vi. 3) _Know ye not that we shall judge the angels?_ and _2 Pet._ ii. 4, _For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down into hell_: and (_Jude_ i. 6) _And the angels that kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the last day_: though it prove the permanence of angelical nature, it confirmeth also their materiality. And (_Matt._ xxii. 30) _In the resurrection men do neither marry nor give in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven_: but in the resurrection men shall be permanent, and not incorporeal; so therefore also are the angels.
There be divers other places out of which may be drawn the like conclusion. To men that understand the signification of these words, _substance_, and _incorporeal_; as _incorporeal_ is taken, not for subtle body, but for _not body_; they imply a contradiction: insomuch as to say, an angel or spirit is in that sense an incorporeal substance, is to say in effect, there is no angel nor spirit at all. Considering therefore the signification of the word _angel_ in the Old Testament, and the nature of dreams and visions that happen to men by the ordinary way of nature; I was inclined to this opinion, that angels were nothing but supernatural apparitions of the fancy, raised by the special and extraordinary operation of God, thereby to make his presence and commandments known to mankind, and chiefly to his own people. But the many places of the New Testament, and our Saviour’s own words, and in such texts, wherein is no suspicion of corruption of the Scripture, have extorted from my feeble reason, an acknowledgment and belief, that there be also angels substantial, and permanent. But to believe they be in no place, that is to say, no where, that is to say, nothing, as they, though indirectly, say, that will have them incorporeal, cannot by Scripture be evinced.
[Sidenote: Inspiration, what.]
On the signification of the word _spirit_, dependeth that of the word INSPIRATION; which must either be taken properly; and then it is nothing but the blowing into a man some thin and subtle air or wind, in such manner as a man filleth a bladder with his breath; or if spirits be not corporeal, but have their existence only in the fancy, it is nothing but the blowing in of a phantasm; which is improper to say, and impossible; for phantasms are not, but only seem to be, somewhat. That word therefore is used in the Scripture metaphorically only: as (_Gen._ ii.
7) where it is said that God _inspired_ into man the breath of life, no more is meant, than that God gave unto him vital motion. For we are not to think that God made first a living breath and then blew it into Adam after he was made, whether that breath were real, or seeming; but only as it is, (_Acts_ xvii. 25) _that he gave him life, and breath_; that is, made him a living creature. And where it is said, (_2 Tim._ iii. 16) _all Scripture is given by inspiration from God_, speaking there of the Scripture of the Old Testament, it is an easy metaphor, to signify, that God inclined the spirit or mind of those writers, to write that which should be useful, in teaching, reproving, correcting, and instructing men in the way of righteous living. But where St. Peter, (_2 Pet._ i.
21) saith, that _Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but the holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit_, by the Holy Spirit is meant the voice of God in a dream or vision supernatural, which is not _inspiration_. Nor, when our Saviour breathing on his disciples, said, _Receive the Holy Spirit_, was that breath the Spirit, but a sign of the spiritual graces he gave unto them. And though it be said of many, and of our Saviour himself, that he was full of the Holy Spirit; yet that fulness is not to be understood for _infusion_ of the substance of God, but for accumulation of his gifts, such as are the gift of sanctity of life, of tongues, and the like, whether attained supernaturally, or by study and industry; for in all cases they are the gifts of God. So likewise where God says (_Joel_ ii. 28) _I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophecy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions_, we are not to understand it in the proper sense, as if his _Spirit_ were like water, subject to effusion or infusion; but as if God had promised to give them prophetical dreams, and visions. For the proper use of the word _infused_, in speaking of the graces of God, is an abuse of it; for those graces are virtues, not bodies to be carried hither and thither, and to be poured into men as into barrels.
In the same manner, to take _inspiration_ in the proper sense, or to say that good _spirits_ entered into men to make them prophecy, or evil _spirits_ into those that became phrenetic, lunatic, or epileptic, is not to take the word in the sense of the Scripture; for the Spirit there is taken for the power of God, working by causes to us unknown. As also (_Acts_ ii. 2) the wind, that is there said to fill the house wherein the apostles were assembled on the day of Pentecost, is not to be understood for the _Holy Spirit_, which is the Deity itself; but for an external sign of God’s special working on their hearts, to effect in them the internal graces, and holy virtues he thought requisite for the performance of their apostleship.
------- CHAPTER XXXV.
OF THE SIGNIFICATION IN SCRIPTURE OF KINGDOM OF GOD, OF HOLY, SACRED, AND SACRAMENT.
[Sidenote: The kingdom of God taken by divines metaphorically, but in the Scriptures properly.]
The _Kingdom of God_ in the writings of divines, and specially in sermons and treatises of devotion, is taken most commonly for eternal felicity, after this life, in the highest heaven, which they also call the kingdom of glory; and sometimes for the earnest of that felicity, sanctification, which they term the kingdom of grace; but never for the monarchy, that is to say, the sovereign power of God over any subjects acquired by their own consent, which is the proper signification of kingdom.
To the contrary, I find the KINGDOM OF GOD to signify, in most places of Scripture, a _kingdom properly so named_, constituted by the votes of the people of Israel in peculiar manner; wherein they chose God for their king by covenant made with him, upon God’s promising them the possession of the land of Canaan; and but seldom metaphorically; and then it is taken for _dominion over sin_; (and only in the New Testament;) because such a dominion as that, every subject shall have in the kingdom of God, and without prejudice to the sovereign.
From the very creation, God not only reigned over all men _naturally_ by his might; but also had _peculiar_ subjects, whom he commanded by a voice, as one man speaketh to another. In which manner he _reigned_ over Adam, and gave him commandment to abstain from the tree of cognizance of good and evil; which when he obeyed not, but tasting thereof, took upon him to be as God, judging between good and evil, not by his creator’s commandment, but by his own sense, his punishment was a privation of the estate of eternal life, wherein God had at first created him: and afterwards God punished his posterity for their vices, all but eight persons, with an universal deluge; and in these eight did consist the then _kingdom of God_.
[Sidenote: The original of the kingdom of God.]
After this it pleased God to speak to Abraham, and (_Gen._ xvii. 7, 8) to make a covenant with him in these words, _I will establish my covenant between me, and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee; and I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession_. In this covenant _Abraham promiseth for himself and his posterity, to obey as God, the Lord that spake to him; and God on his part promiseth to Abraham the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession_. And for a memorial, and a token of this covenant, he ordaineth (_Gen._ xvii. 11) the _sacrament of circumcision_. This is it which is called the _old covenant_ or _testament_; and containeth a contract between God and Abraham; by which Abraham obligeth himself, and his posterity, in a peculiar manner to be subject to God’s positive law; for to the law moral he was obliged before, as by an oath of allegiance. And though the name of _King_ be not yet given to God, nor of _kingdom_ to Abraham and his seed: yet the thing is the same; namely, an institution by pact, of God’s peculiar sovereignty over the seed of Abraham; which in the renewing of the same covenant by Moses, at Mount Sinai, is expressly called a peculiar _kingdom of God_ over the Jews: and it is of Abraham, not of Moses, St.
Paul saith (_Rom._ iv. 11) that he is the _father of the faithful_; that is, of those that are loyal, and do not violate their allegiance sworn to God, then by circumcision, and afterwards in the _new covenant_ by baptism.
[Sidenote: That the kingdom of God is properly his civil sovereignty over a peculiar people by pact.]
This covenant, at the foot of Mount Sinai, was renewed by Moses, (_Exod._ xix. 5) where the Lord commandeth Moses to speak to the people in this manner, _If you will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar people to me, for all the earth is mine; and ye shall be unto me a sacerdotal kingdom, and an holy nation_. For a _peculiar people_, the vulgar Latin hath _peculium de cunctis populis_: the English translation, made in the beginning of the reign of King James, hath a _peculiar treasure unto me above all nations_; and the Geneva French, _the most precious jewel of all nations_. But the truest translation is the first, because it is confirmed by St. Paul himself (_Tit._ ii. 14) where he saith, alluding to that place, that our blessed Saviour _gave himself for us, that he might purify us to himself, a peculiar_, that is, an extraordinary, _people_: for the word is in the Greek περιούσιος, which is opposed commonly to the word ἐπιούσιος: and as this signifieth _ordinary_, _quotidian_, or, as in the Lord’s Prayer, _of daily use_; so the other signifieth that which is _overplus_, and _stored up_, and _enjoyed in a special manner_; which the Latins call _peculium_: and this meaning of the place is confirmed by the reason God rendereth of it, which followeth immediately, in that he addeth, _For all the earth is mine_, as if he should say, _All the nations of the world are mine_; but it is not so that you are mine, but in a _special manner_: for they are all mine, by reason of my power; but you shall be mine, by your own consent, and covenant; which is an addition to his ordinary title, to all nations.
The same is again confirmed in express words in the same text, _Ye shall be to me a sacerdotal kingdom, and an holy nation_. The vulgar Latin hath it, _regnum sacerdotale_, to which agreeth the translation of that also the institution itself, by which no man might enter into the _Sanctum Sanctorum_, that is to say, no man might enquire God’s will immediately of God himself, but only the high-priest. The English translation before mentioned, following that of Geneva, has, _a kingdom of priests_; which is either meant of the succession of one high-priest after another, or else it accordeth not with St. Peter, nor with the exercise of the high-priesthood: for there was never any but the high-priest only, that was to inform the people of God’s will; nor any convocation of priests ever allowed to enter into the _Sanctum Sanctorum_.
Again, the title of a _holy nation_ confirms the same: for _holy_ signifies, that which is God’s by special, not by general right. All the earth, as is said in the text, is God’s; but all the earth is not called _holy_, but that only which is set apart for his especial service, as was the nation of the Jews. It is therefore manifest enough by this one place, that by the _kingdom of God_, is properly meant a commonwealth, instituted, by the consent of those which were to be subject thereto, for their civil government, and the regulating of their behaviour, not only towards God their king, but also towards one another in point of justice, and towards other nations both in peace and war; which properly was a kingdom wherein God was king, and the high-priest was to be, after the death of Moses, his sole viceroy or lieutenant.
But there be many other places that clearly prove the same. As first (_1 Samuel_, viii. 7) when the Elders of Israel, grieved with the corruption of the sons of Samuel, demanded a king, Samuel displeased therewith, prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord answering said unto him, _Hearken unto the voice of the people, for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them_. Out of which it is evident, that God himself was then their king; and Samuel did not command the people, but only delivered to them that which God from time to time appointed him.
Again, (_1 Sam._ xii. 12) where Samuel saith to the people, _When ye saw that Nahash, king of the children of Ammon, came against you, ye said unto me, Nay, but a king shall reign over us; when the Lord your God was your king_. It is manifest that God was their king, and governed the civil state of their commonwealth.
And after the Israelites had rejected God, the prophets did foretell his restitution; as (_Isaiah_, xxiv. 23) _Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of hosts shall reign in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem_; where he speaketh expressly of his reign in Zion and Jerusalem; that is, on earth. And (_Micah_, iv. 7) _And the Lord shall reign over them in Mount Zion_: this Mount Zion is in Jerusalem, upon the earth. And (_Ezek._ xx. 33) _As I live, saith the Lord God, surely with a mighty hand, and a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out, I will rule over you_; and (verse 37) _I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant_; that is, I will reign over you, and make you to stand to that covenant which you made with me by Moses, and brake in your rebellion against me in the days of Samuel, and in your election of another king.
And in the New Testament, the angel Gabriel saith of our Saviour (_Luke_ i. 32, 33) _He shall be great, and be called the Son of the most High, and the Lord shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end_. This is also a kingdom upon earth; for the claim whereof, as an enemy to Cæsar, he was put to death; the title of his cross, was, _Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews_; he was crowned in scorn with a crown of thorns; and for the proclaiming of him, it is said of the disciples (_Acts_ xvii. 7) _That they did all of them contrary to the decrees of Cæsar, saying there was another king, one Jesus_. The kingdom therefore of God is a real, not a metaphorical kingdom; and so taken, not only in the Old Testament, but in the New; when we say, _For thine is the kingdom, the power, and glory_, it is to be understood of God’s kingdom, by force of our covenant, not by the right of God’s power; for such a kingdom God always hath; so that it were superfluous to say in our prayer, _Thy kingdom come_, unless it be meant of the restoration of that kingdom of God by Christ, which by revolt of the Israelites had been interrupted in the election of Saul. Nor had it been proper to say, _The kingdom of heaven is at hand_; or to pray, _Thy kingdom come_, if it had still continued.
There be so many other places that confirm this interpretation, that it were a wonder there is no greater notice taken of it, but that it gives too much light to Christian kings to see their right of ecclesiastical government. This they have observed, that instead of a _sacerdotal kingdom_, translate, _a kingdom of priests_; for they may as well translate a _royal priesthood_, as it is in St. Peter, into a _priesthood of kings_. And whereas, for a _peculiar people_, they put a _precious jewel_, or _treasure_, a man might as well call the special regiment, or company of a general, the general’s precious jewel, or his treasure.
In short, the kingdom of God is a civil kingdom; which consisted, first, in the obligation of the people of Israel to those laws, which Moses should bring unto them from Mount Sinai; and which afterwards the high-priest for the time being, should deliver to them from before the cherubims in the _sanctum sanctorum_; and which kingdom having been cast off in the election of Saul, the prophets foretold, should be restored by Christ; and the restoration whereof we daily pray for, when we say in the Lord’s Prayer, _Thy kingdom come_; and the right whereof we acknowledge, when we add, _For thine is the kingdom, the power, and glory, for ever and ever, Amen_; and the proclaiming whereof, was the preaching of the apostles; and to which men are prepared, by the teachers of the Gospel; to embrace which Gospel, that is to say, to promise obedience to God’s government, is to be in the _kingdom of grace_, because God hath _gratis_ given to such the power to be the subjects, that is children, of God hereafter, when Christ shall come in majesty to judge the world, and actually to govern his own people, which is called _the kingdom of glory_. If the kingdom of God, called also the kingdom of heaven, from the gloriousness and admirable height of that throne, were not a kingdom which God by his lieutenants, or vicars, who deliver his commandments to the people, did exercise on earth; there would not have been so much contention, and war, about who it is, by whom God speaketh to us; neither would many priests have troubled themselves with spiritual jurisdiction, nor any king have denied it them.
[Sidenote: Holy, what.]
Out of this literal interpretation of the _kingdom of God_, ariseth also the true interpretation of the word HOLY. For it is a word, which in God’s kingdom answereth to that, which men in their kingdoms use to call _public_, or the _king’s_.
The king of any country is the _public_ person, or representative of all his own subjects. And God the king of Israel was the _Holy One_ of Israel. The nation which is subject to one earthly sovereign, is the nation of that sovereign, that is, of the public person. So the Jews, who were God’s nation, were called (_Exod._ xix. 6) _a holy nation_. For by _holy_, is always understood either God himself, or that which is God’s in propriety; as by public is always meant, either the person of the commonwealth itself, or something that is so the commonwealth’s, as no private person can claim any propriety therein.
Therefore the Sabbath, God’s day, is a _holy day_; the temple, God’s house, _a holy house_; sacrifices, tithes, and offerings, God’s tribute, _holy duties_; priests, prophets, and anointed kings, under Christ, God’s ministers, _holy men_; the celestial ministering spirits, God’s messengers, _holy angels_; and the like: and wheresoever the word _holy_ is taken properly, there is still something signified of propriety, gotten by consent. In saying, _Hallowed be thy name_, we do but pray to God for grace to keep the first commandment, of _having no other Gods but him_. Mankind is God’s nation in propriety: but the Jews only were a _holy nation_. Why, but because they became his propriety by covenant?
[Sidenote: Sacred, what.]
And the word _profane_, is usually taken in the Scripture for the same with _common_; and consequently their contraries, _holy_ and _proper_, in the kingdom of God, must be the same also. But figuratively, those men also are called _holy_, that led such godly lives, as if they had forsaken all worldly designs, and wholly devoted and given themselves to God. In the proper sense, that which is made _holy_ by God’s appropriating or separating it to his own use, is said to be _sanctified_ by God, as the seventh day in the fourth commandment; and as the elect in the New Testament were said to be _sanctified_, when they were endued with the spirit of godliness. And that which is made _holy_ by the dedication of men, and given to God, so as to be used only in his public service, is called also SACRED, and said to be consecrated, as temples, and other houses of public prayer, and their utensils, priests, and ministers, victims, offerings, and the external matter of sacraments.
[Sidenote: Degrees of sanctity.]
Of _holiness_ there be degrees: for of those things that are set apart for the service of God, there may be some set apart again, for a nearer and more especial service. The whole nation of the Israelites were a people holy to God; yet the tribe of Levi was amongst the Israelites a holy tribe; and amongst the Levites, the priests were yet more holy; and amongst the priests, the high-priest was the most holy. So the land of Judea was the Holy Land; but the holy city wherein God was to be worshipped, was more holy; and again the Temple more holy than the city, and the _sanctum sanctorum_ more holy than the rest of the Temple.
[Sidenote: Sacrament.]
A SACRAMENT, is a separation of some visible thing from common use; and a consecration of it to God’s service, for a sign either of our admission into the kingdom of God, to be of the number of his peculiar people, or for a commemoration of the same. In the Old Testament, the sign of admission was _circumcision_; in the New Testament, _baptism_.
The commemoration of it in the Old Testament, was the _eating_, at a certain time which was anniversary, of the _Paschal Lamb_; by which they were put in mind of the night wherein they were delivered out of their bondage in Egypt; and in the New Testament, the celebrating of the _Lord’s Supper_; by which, we are put in mind of our deliverance from the bondage of sin, by our blessed Saviour’s death upon the cross. The sacraments of _admission_, are but once to be used, because there needs